Pink Sheet is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By


The End Of Pay-For-Delay? FTC Sees An Opportunity In AndroGel Lawsuit

This article was originally published in RPM Report

Executive Summary

Reverse payment settlements are a popular tactic for settling patent disputes between brand companies and their generic competitors. The Federal Trade Commission has aggressively (but mostly unsuccessfully) fought “pay-for-delay” deals in the courts, arguing that they drive up drug prices. Now FTC has its best chance yet at convincing the Supreme Court to hear the issue. Is this the end of pay-for-delay?

You may also be interested in...

So Long, Safe Harbor: Pay-for-Delay Riskier After Supreme Court Opinion

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis makes it easier for FTC and private plaintiffs to challenge reverse payment settlements between branded drug companies and their would-be generic competitors. While the opinion declines to find “pay-for-delay” deals presumptively anticompetitive (a win for industry), it also strips a safe harbor used by the appeals courts (a clear loss).

Compromise On “Pay For Delay”? Supreme Court Hunts for Middle Ground

During Supreme Court oral arguments in the AndroGel pay-for-delay case, the government and drug manufacturers each pushed for a one-size-fits-all antitrust interpretation of brand-generic reverse payment settlements. But the most likely outcome will probably fall somewhere in the middle: allowing the deals to continue, but with additional scrutiny to ensure they are not anticompetitive.

“Pay-For-Delay” Fight Is Now: FTC, GPhA Spar Over Report In Prelude To Supreme Court Review

Of the 140 brand-generic patent settlements in FY 2012, 40 contained both compensation to the generic manufacturer and a restriction on generic entry; FTC announces this record number as its suit against Watson goes to Supreme Court.

Related Content


Related Companies




Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts